Re: [Agenda] W3C Credentials CG Call Tues, Aug 10, 9am PT, 12pm ET, 5pm GMT, 6pm CET / 6AM+1 NZDT

Manu, you're conflating 2 completely unrelated issues/questions and hence, confusing the overall discussion for everyone.

Yes, at the beginning of the call, I asked a question about the scope of the VC HTTP API: agent-to-storage and/or agent-to-agent. That was handled reasonably well (but actually wasn't answered during the use case discussion but it was handled well enough).

The only example I quoted was Unbounded VC question as the purest example of issue #2.

This conversation is so muddled now, it's not worth pursuing - at least on my part.

Get Outlook for Android<>

From: Manu Sporny <>
Sent: Saturday, August 7, 2021 3:43:59 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [Agenda] W3C Credentials CG Call Tues, Aug 10, 9am PT, 12pm ET, 5pm GMT, 6pm CET / 6AM+1 NZDT

On 8/7/21 12:14 AM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) wrote:
> 2. A specific additional process issue I'd like to raise is when a
> specific, relevant comment or question is raised (after and by someone who
> "raised their hand"), and it is dutifully recorded in the minutes/online
> recording, and then completely ignored/forgotten by the call's moderator or
> chairperson.
> A specific example of the latter that I raised yesterday is the need to
> have VC HTTP protocol support for Unbound Verifiable Credentials.
> Dutifully recorded then ignored/ forgotten by the moderator. This is
> another/specific flavour of the cliche behavior that JoeA described in his
> post.

Seeing as this is implicating me (the meeting organizer) in
ignoring/forgetting you, let me try to provide a different recollection of events:

You asked to be added to the Agenda here (1:20 audio marker):

I acknowledged your request, elaborated on your question, and asked if it
would be ok for us to talk about your concern during Use Cases here (1:30-2:00
audio marker):

Eric said your question would be the main topic of the Use Case update. You
said that would be fine to cover it then (2:05-2:25 audio marker), scribe
missed the comment).

You then noted your question here:

... and the group kept going, seemingly uninterested in your direct question,
but agreeing to discuss scoping proposals at length during the next call.

I can't force people to be interested in having the exact conversation you
want to have. The onus is on you to make the discussion interesting enough for
the group to engage.

It's not clique behaviour, people were just not interested in having the
"Unbound Verifiable Credential" discussion at that time. They might want to
have the discussion in the future.

I personally thought it was an interesting question, but couldn't attach its
relevance to the question of scope. My take on it is: "Of course it's in
scope, you don't have to have a subject identifier in a VC"... but perhaps
there is a nuance there that I'm missing, and if it's truly an important
topic, it'll come up again.

If you would like to try again at some point in the future, raising an issue
is a good way of doing that:

I'm just pushing back, strongly, on your suggestion that your comment was
forgotten or ignored as well as your implication that it was due to "clique-y"

-- manu

Manu Sporny -
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)

Received on Sunday, 8 August 2021 22:31:15 UTC